I would like to write a LTE to rebut anti-gun nut Morrissey.

imported post

No No, TFred you're cool. I understand the point you have made. My point is the DGIF has 75 ordinances that apply to the use and transportation of long guns. The individual counties and cities have those ordinances and somehow preemption doesn't apply.

Clearly the individual jurisdictions have made those rules without having to go through the legislature.

Morrissey used the term "guns". That was the point I was making, that I don't believe him to be correct and I believe he misleads the reader of his LTE. It seems to me that preemption applies to handguns and not long guns.

You can have a loaded shotgun in Hanover, but if you stay west on 360 and you arrive in the city that loaded shotgun is in violation of a city ordinance. I don't believe preemption is going to get you out ofa summons.

There you have it clear as mud.

imported post

T Dubya wrote:

No No, TFred you're cool.  I understand the point you have made.  My point is the DGIF has 75 ordinances that apply to the use and transportation of long guns.  The individual counties and cities have those ordinances and somehow preemption doesn't apply.

Clearly the individual jurisdictions have made those rules without having to go through the legislature.

Morrissey used the term "guns".   That was the point I was making, that I don't believe him to be correct and I believe he misleads the reader of his LTE.  It seems to me that preemption applies to handguns and not long guns.

You can have a loaded shotgun in Hanover, but if you stay west on 360 and you arrive in the city that loaded shotgun is in violation of a city ordinance.  I don't believe preemption is going to get you out of a summons.

There you have it clear as mud.

Click to expand...

You guys have the laws correct, and you are onto the actual scheme at play here. DGIF is a STATE agency. The state has reserved the power to regulate to itself. So if a locality can convince DGIF to write a regulation it moves through a much easier channel for approval and it will usually garner less attention from the firearms community. After all if it is proposed by DGIF it must apply to hunting, not general firearms right? That is how a locality gets this stuff done under the radar.

A similar process in reverse occurs with land taking. The state process is long and expensive. Some more urban localities can use the "Quick Take" process which is cheaper and a lot faster. Also the QT process removes most of the protections for the land owner. So if the state wants a piece of land, all they have to do is tell a locality and the locals will use the QT process and a partnership is born.

imported post

simmonsjoe wrote:

Repeater wrote:

Reading the newspaper image, I see Joe persists in using the term bars:

"... and allowing patrons to carry concealed weapons into bars where alcohol is served."

How many of you see what Morrissey's other error is? Perhaps Joe should read J3 more carefully.

Click to expand...

I'm not even going to look it up. If memory serves, it is "restaurants and clubs" which serve alcohol. How'd I do?

Click to expand...

That's fine, except that's the error I mentioned. What's Joe's other error?

imported post

simmonsjoe wrote:

2A still isn't incorporated. This is a forum on VA Law, and the 2A, currently, has no place here. Many States DO have that authority properly, depending on that State's constitution.

Click to expand...

Not incorporated?!?!

"shall not be infringed".

The 9th and the 10th provide ALL OTHER AUTHORITY to the states. That means by accession to the Constitution the separate states were meant to honor its law.

Do the other states have to incorporate the 1st amendment to "permit" (a disgusting term) citizens to speak or practice religion freely in order for it to be lawful? No. It is ludicrous to even think so, yet so many people completely flip on the 2nd. And when a self-proclaimed "pro-gun" individual takes the stance that the states have some authority to limit the possession of ownership and carry, it only does our cause that much more harm.

imported post

wylde007 wrote:

simmonsjoe wrote:

2A still isn't incorporated. This is a forum on VA Law, and the 2A, currently, has no place here. Many States DO have that authority properly, depending on that State's constitution.

Click to expand...

Not incorporated?!?!

"shall not be infringed".

The 9th and the 10th provide ALL OTHER AUTHORITY to the states. That means by accession to the Constitution the separate states were meant to honor its law.

Do the other states have to incorporate the 1st amendment to "permit" (a disgusting term) citizens to speak or practice religion freely in order for it to be lawful? No. It is ludicrous to even think so, yet so many people completely flip on the 2nd. And when a self-proclaimed "pro-gun" individual takes the stance that the states have some authority to limit the possession of ownership and carry, it only does our cause that much more harm.

Click to expand...

Ummm, yes they do? the 1A IS INCORPORATED against the states. This isn't really the appropriate thread for this. If you wish to learn more about the efforts to incorporate the 2A check out

http://www.chicagoguncase.com/

Read the constitution a little more carefully. The Bill of Rights, in most cases, restrict only federal gov't.

I believe the 2A will be incorporated soon. Until then it has no place in the VA forum when discussing state law. Google 2A incorporation or search the forums as it has been discussed plenty. If you still, after that, need to discuss it more, start a thread.

imported post

simmonsjoe wrote:

wylde007 wrote:

simmonsjoe wrote:

2A still isn't incorporated.  This is a forum on VA Law, and the 2A, currently, has no place here.  Many States DO have that authority properly, depending on that State's constitution.

Click to expand...

Not incorporated?!?!

"shall not be infringed".

The 9th and the 10th provide ALL OTHER AUTHORITY to the states.  That means by accession to the Constitution the separate states were meant to honor its law.

Do the other states have to incorporate the 1st amendment to "permit" (a disgusting term) citizens to speak or practice religion freely in order for it to be lawful?  No.  It is ludicrous to even think so, yet so many people completely flip on the 2nd.  And when a self-proclaimed "pro-gun" individual takes the stance that the states have some authority to limit the possession of ownership and carry, it only does our cause that much more harm.

Click to expand...

Ummm, yes they do?  the 1A IS INCORPORATED against the states.  This isn't really the appropriate thread for this.  If you wish to learn more about the efforts to incorporate the 2A check out

http://www.chicagoguncase.com/

Read the constitution a little more carefully.  The Bill of Rights, in most cases, restrict only federal gov't.

I believe the 2A will be incorporated soon.  Until then it has no place in the VA forum when discussing state law.  Google 2A incorporation or search the forums as it has been discussed plenty.  If you still, after that, need to discuss it more, start a thread.

Click to expand...

Joe has a very good bead on this and this is probably not the place for the discussion, but Virginia DOES have in it's own Constitution language similar to TSA.

Some other states do as well, but many do not. Those that do not, can and do make laws against firearms ownership, and since TSA only restricts the Federal Government, there is nothing to stop them.:banghead:

Welcome to Hawaii. Please check you guns at the airport. For gun owners its just another crappy day in paradise.